To me, the biggest problem with the double whammy suspensions of Browner and Sherman is that both players will miss games at the same time, forcing us to start our #3 and #4 corners for four games. Given the way Trufant has played lately, that's a pretty big deal, because he's been getting burned on a regular basis. Thurmond on the other hand is coming back from injury and you would assume he wouldn't be 100% up to speed, but the last time he played for us, he looked very promising.

If we kept one of Sherman/Browner while starting him across from Thurmond while keeping Trufant in nickle only situations, then our secondary wouldn't actually be hurt very much. The cost of losing one of Sherman/Browner for 8 games is a lot less devastating than losing both for 4 games, especially when your team is in the middle of a tight wildcard race.

So here's a thought- after the Chicago game have Browner agree to serve his suspension immediately, which would take him out for the rest of the regular season, but would clear him for the start of 2013. Then have Richard Sherman aggressively pursue the appeal process (which he is already doing) and try to have the case pushed into the offseason. In a worst case scenario, Sherman would miss the first four of next season, but we'd never have fewer than two good starting corners in any of those games (barring injury). There is also a chance that Sherman could win his appeal over the long offseason, which gives added incentive for him to fight it.

I don't know if that's exactly how things will go down, but if you ask me, that's the smartest way to approach this problem.

I think you're underestimating the dropoff in play between BB/Sherman and Thurmond. And, frankly, between Sherman and BB. I think 8 games at less than full strength is a far worse situation to be in, and I would rather we take our lumps this year and be sterling next year than struggle early next year because our DBs aren't as great as they could be.

If it were all the same year I might feel differently, but I hope they rip that bandaid right off.

I think its already too late for that. Both have already gone too far in their own defense and claiming their innocence. If Browner (or Sherman) all of a sudden roll over and says "suspend me" he looks like the biggest douchebag in the NFL.

The timing (amng ither things) of this is reminiscent of Pat and Kevin Williams case. That broke in early December when the Vikes were vying for homefield advantage throughout the NFC playoffs. That threatened to derail that team's season but those two managed to fight their suspensions for just over three years, I believe.

I understand what you are saying, but that does involve one of them "rolling over" or giving up the fight. Strategically, in the worst case scenerio, your idea makes great sense. But if these guys feel truely, legitimately wronged I hope they fight it to the end and drag it out as long as Pat and Kevin Williams dragged out their starcaps issue.

As a general related thought, Seahawk or not, I have never liked how these things become public prior to guys having their appeal heard. Andre Brown won his appeal, yet his name got tied to PEDs anyway, when the issue shouldn't have ever become public unless he failed his appeal.

JSeahawks wrote:I think its already too late for that. Both have already gone too far in their own defense and claiming their innocence. If Browner (or Sherman) all of a sudden roll over and says "suspend me" he looks like the biggest douchebag in the NFL.

So? Who cares. 4 game suspension is max they get no matter what.

Peppers dd exactly this a few years back once the panthers were out of contention.

If it turns out they have to take their 4 games each, I'd rather it be this year. I REALLY don't want to start off next year in a weakened state. As high a hopes as a lot of us had for this year, next will at least equal that with RW going in with a solid year under his belt.

Interesting thoughts... What if one agreed to the suspension post the CHI game and the other fought it as long as possible? We then buy time. The worst case IMO is they fight it, we miss the playoffs and the suspensions hit in 2013

Happypuppy wrote:Interesting thoughts... What if one agreed to the suspension post the CHI game and the other fought it as long as possible? We then buy time. The worst case IMO is they fight it, we miss the playoffs and the suspensions hit in 2013

Worst case for me is that we rush to accuse two of our own players who have asked us to wait for the resolution of their appeals before passing judgement.

I like the idea as well.As for the Browner just dropping his appeal and taking it-no.He loses the appeal and takes it and Sherman keeps fighting it until the offseason.Then you also have all training camp to get someone ready to play the 1st month of the season.

One other problem I have with this suggestion: If they're really innocent (which I doubt, but you never know).

Imagine this scenario: Brandon Browner decides to roll over, gives up his appeals attempt and accepts the 4 game suspension now to get it out of the way. Then next training camp, he's tested again and he tests positive again (either legitly, or by mistake somehow) then BAM he's gone for a whole season.

I think if there's any chance at all of getting off the hook they have to let the appeals process play all the way out, even if it means simultanious suspensions.

morgulon1 wrote:This goes against everything our legal system stands for. If I were Sherman and Browner I'd take this to the supreme court.Thank you btw.

You guys are missing the point - sorry

If the tests are positive they were caught - redhanded. NFL presents evidence to their guilt - here is a positive test. Now the players can present how they bought a legal supplement that didn't have content x listed on there and that is how they got it (I suggest not creating a fake website and those that read a little bit of sports should get this refernce).

The point is that they aren't assumed guilty based on nothing. Any player convicted is deemed guilty based on a positive test - kind of exactly what our legal system is based upon

It's still super unfair to drag this all out publicly (and an unnecessary stress on all of us), but then celebrities feel it's unfair to have the paparazzi hound them throughout every miniscule aspect of their lives. Cry me a river....it goes with the territory, and you're pretty nicely compensated for the inconvenience. I'LL take that horrible bargain there.

For the record I would rather see the suspensions happen in the future than now for a lot of reasons. I also think that if Thurmond is as good as he was just before his 2011 injury, that you could probably stagger these suspensions and if Thurmond resumes his previous level of play, then neither 2012 or 2013 is hurt very much.

I'm also not terribly worried about any of these players testing positive again. It sounds like at least in Sherman's case, he made an innocent but preventable mistake.

Since he's already being monitored more frequently because of a substance abuse issue while he was with Denver, doesn't that open the possibility that he gets a tougher punishment than Sherman? His situation seems analogous to 'violating parole.'